WUWT Contest Winner, General Audience, Second Place – “Is There Really a Climate Crisis?”

The Dog That Never Barks

by David Hawkins

My background and insight

I read natural science at university, many years ago now, and the scientific method is, to my mind, the best way of determining the validity of contentious issues.

After college, I trained and qualified as a Chartered Accountant (CPA in US terms) and used those skills in industry as Financial Controller for the UK subsidiary of a well known food manufacturer.  My team kept the books and produced monthly management accounts and the annual accounts for audit.  We also spent a lot of time producing forecasts to indicate to management how well the business expected to do in coming months and years.

My point in detailing the responsibilities of my old job here is that the financial results for any particular time period are nearly meaningless by themselves: they acquire context by being compared to other similar results, either the previous period, the same period in the previous year or against forecast.  Whilst the previous year is interesting, the most useful comparison is always going to be against the forecast: what you expected this period to do compared to how it has actually turned out.

Many readers will, by now, be ahead of me and can see why I mention this part of financial management here.  The similarity between management accounting and climate science is clear: both record and publish actual results and both make forecasts of what will happen in the near or more distant future.  The difference, to my eyes, is that management accountants always provide meaningful context to their reporting of actual results and that climate scientists rarely do, and then never provide the most relevant comparisons.

Let me justify that strong statement.  The actual temperature for a month or year is often compared by the meteorological authorities (and then reported by the mainstream media) against previous years, usually by saying that month X has been the second (or third, take your pick) warmest of that month on record, often for a location of their choice that happens to generate a record this period.  This can generate a succession of scary sounding headlines of rising temperatures comparing many different times and different locations.  That in itself is cherry-picking data, by selecting the exact comparison to make after the results are all in and not before.  For every scary temperature record report, there are a thousand that aren’t a record and therefore not interesting to report.

What I have NEVER seen is a story where any particular period exceeded the results predicted in a forecast.  Think about that: has anyone ever seen an article in a journal or the mainstream media where actual temperatures anywhere in the world were higher than the climate models predicted?  If that happened with my financial forecasting, I would be getting feedback (let the reader understand the euphemism) from senior management and head office that my forecasting was no good, but there appears to be no mechanism whereby climate scientists are similarly routinely called to account, so this essay is an attempt to do so exactly that.

The title of this essay

I have titled this essay as “The dog that never barks” as a mis-quotation from the Sherlock Holmes story Silver Blaze.  In the story, Holmes solves the case because he, and only he, realises that the guard dog not barking during the night when a crime was committed meant that the guard dog knew the intruder and was not alarmed by him, so the lack of barking was the relevant fact.  No-one else understood that the missing bark was the relevant fact.

In our present case, the lack of actual temperatures exceeding those forecast by climate models is the relevant fact.  Not just once, as in the Sherlock Holmes story, but NEVER.  The mainstream media, used to being fed press releases from climate activists rather than thinking for themselves, haven’t noticed the lack of comparison.  This comparison against forecast is the best feedback there is.  The implications of the findings when comparisons are made are staggering.

A Paper reporting comparisons

A very few comparisons are made and published in respectable journals, written by scientists truly interested in the reliability of climate models.  These all find that the models overstate the rise in global temperatures that actually occur.  For example, McKitrick & Christy1 examined a group of climate models in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6 (CMIP6) and found that: “All model runs warmed faster than observations in the lower troposphere and mid-troposphere, in the tropics and globally.  On average, and in most individual cases, the trend difference is significant.  Warming trends in models tends to rise with the model Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and we present evidence that the distribution of ECS values across the model is unrealistically high.”  That quote is taken from their Plain Language Summary but in even plainer language I understand that to mean the the models run too hot and the parameters chosen by the modellers are set too high.

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.  Figure 4 from McKittrick & Christy’s paper shows the predicted and actual warming per decade.

Note that there is no playing with axes, both ECS and warming have zero as the lowest value.  The open shaped symbols concern the mid- troposphere, the closed ones the lower troposphere; red vs blue simply shows high and low ECS values used in the models.  The really interesting points are the two inverted triangles at the foot of the graph where ECS is equal to zero, highlighted by the downward arrows pointing to them.  These are the actual values observed by a variety of methodologies for the mid and lower troposphere.  There is no overlap of warming trends found in actual values with the models, in either mid or lower troposphere.  The vast majority of the data points for predicted temperature rise from the models far exceed what has been actually observed.

The even plainer statement of conclusions to draw from their paper is this: climate models have been shown to be highly inaccurate and to predict temperature rises well in excess of those found.  No reliance should therefore be placed on their predictions of the future temperatures.

The Science is never settled

Climate campaigners like to avoid revisiting issues by saying “The science is settled”.  But this viewpoint is very much non-scientific.  The best synopsis of how scientists should behave was devised by sociologist Robert Merton around 1943, the so-called Mertonian Norms.2  This set of ideals takes the goals and methods of science that should be binding on scientists.  His list comprises:

  • Universalism:  Scientific knowledge is scientific knowledge, no matter who comes up with it, as long as their methods are sound.
  • Disinteredness:  Scientists are not in it for the money, for political or ideological reasons or to enhance their own or their institution’s reputations.  They should be doing science to advance our understanding of the universe.
  • Communality:  Scientists should share knowledge with each other.  This is the reason that findings are published in journals.
  • Organised Scepticism:  Nothing is sacred, a scientific claim should never be accepted at face value.  We should suspend judgement on any given finding until we have properly checked all the data and the methodology.  The most obvious example of organised scepticism is the practice of peer review.

Ritchie shows that mainstream science has problems with the ideals of the Mertonian Norms, with many examples of fraud, bias, negligence, peer review problems, poor use of statistics (e.g. p-hacking) and perverse incentives in funding and hiring.

Climate science almost seems to delight in ignoring them or doing the exact opposite.  Watts Up With That provides many, many examples of this.

Conclusion

The environmental campaign leading to demands for radical changes to our lifestyles relies on a progression from one assertion to another, all supposedly scientifically supported.  This series starts with the assertion that climate models are a good predictor of future climate and temperature.  The next assumption (probably the largest) is that carbon dioxide is the main, if not the only driver, of these climate models.  The next assumption is that a rise in global temperatures in excess of 1.5 degrees Centigrade by 2050 will have a disastrous effect on the ecosystems of the planet.  The final assumption in the chain is that limiting carbon dioxide generated by humanity to arbitrarily set limits will stabilise global temperatures.

My essay here shows that the first assumption is false.  Climate models in the past have not predicted current temperature trends, so cannot be assumed to be accurate in the future.  I could have chosen (and others probably will) to write and challenge any of the other assumptions in the chain, for all are equally erroneous.

The environmental movement is therefore inherently political, being based on unsound science, and should be open to robust challenge on both scientific and political grounds.

Reference:

1. “Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers” Earth and Space Science 8, (7)

2. “Science Fictions, exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science” by Stuart Ritchie, Vintage, 2021 p.21

4.9 37 votes
Article Rating
47 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Case
May 5, 2022 2:12 pm

Think about that: has anyone ever seen an article in a journal or the mainstream media where actual temperatures anywhere in the world were higher than the climate models predicted? 
_______________________________________________

You’ve got to be kidding, “Worse than previously thought” is a well known phrase used by the climate crusaders.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Steve Case
May 5, 2022 2:26 pm

Mr. Case, it appears that you mistook the author, Mr. Hawkins’, point.

The climate clowns’ slogan you cite is bellowed non-stop in spite of the fact that (as Hawkins asserts): no surface temperature data anywhere in the world has exceeded the CMIP projections.

(Also, note that the “WTPT” ranting is directed in a shot-gun manner at every possible weather or environmental phenomena, not just surface temperature.)

Last edited 20 days ago by Janice Moore
Gary Pearse
Reply to  Janice Moore
May 5, 2022 3:03 pm

Climateers also exploit the fact that it is the nature of ordinary climate that somewhere on earth a new record is being set FOR THAT SITE. 25 miles away no new record -That the record can be for cold or hot, they have that covered with CC. To me, this is a huge ‘tell’. Because they can’t show galloping T trend progressions, they fall back on the new lonely ‘record’. They demonstrate unabashed dishonesty when they don’t have game. Is anyone collecting names for public shaming when this ‘unsustainable’ scam collapses?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 5, 2022 9:11 pm

It’ll probably be like the cooling predictions.

“Nobody credible actually predicted Catastrophic Warming! But [insert capitalism-caused catastrophe here] is a REAL problem, doncha know!”

Reply to  Steve Case
May 6, 2022 6:07 am

Therein lies a paradox – climate has turned out worse than we thought, but not as bad as we modelled.

Janice Moore
May 5, 2022 2:29 pm

Great job, David Hawkins! Glad to FINALLY get to read your excellent essay. Your employer was blessed to have such an articulate, thoughtful, accountant on its staff. I have a feeling that no one replaced you, not truly. Succeeded you, yes, but, you were, I think, not replaceable.

And, CONGRATULATIONS! 😊

H. D. Hoese
May 5, 2022 2:35 pm

I just spent more time in the last week than I could get away with reading ecosystem model papers. While I learned a lot this is the only one that didn’t seem to positively worship them. Don’t recall seeing “relevant fact” anywhere. — Rose, K. A. 2012. End-to-end models for marine ecosystems: Are we on the precipice of a significant advance or just putting lipstick on a pig? Scientia Marina 76(1):195-201.   doi: 10.3989/scimar.03574.20B

End-to-end models cover the physical and biological totality of an ecosystem.There are now over a 1000 ecosystem models/year published, hardly any, if any, of them close to total.

Jay Willis
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
May 6, 2022 6:49 am

The key here with Marine Ecosystem Models is the fact that they are so complicated that nobody every has the time or inclination to refute them. I had a crack in one of my papers, but I had to hide it in the title to get it past the reviewers….When you really get into it Marine Ecosystem Modelling is an art – you can twiddle and tune things to get what you want – you can change things to make blatently illogical assertions from the point of view of evolution, but it’s all so complex, you have to spend hours digging in it to find out – then what’s the benefit to you of refuting it? Nothing, in the mutual appreciation society of peer review – you don’t need enemies!

Willis, J., 2014. Whales maintained a high abundance of krill; both are ecosystem engineers in the Southern Ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 513, pp.51-69.

Rud Istvan
May 5, 2022 2:47 pm

This is a magnificent essay. Points out something simple and basic I had not before (my bad) realized—in now over 40 years it has NEVER been worse than predicted by warmunists. Only ‘worse than before’, which follows logically
—except for the ‘worse’ assumption—from natural warming out of the LIA.

Summer Arctic sea ice never disappeared.
Sea level rise never accelerated.
Polar bear populations never shrank.

Well done. TY.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 5, 2022 9:12 pm

Yes. The ONLY things that are ever worse than previous predictions are more recent predictions. Double meaning definitely intended.

Tom.1
May 5, 2022 3:06 pm

I think the observation about not “beating the forecast” is an interesting one, but the forecast is a bit of a moveable feast, so it’s really hard to tell. We do hear the expression “it’s worse than we thought” a great deal, but it’s hard to know what that means. Anyway, good job!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom.1
May 5, 2022 3:31 pm

… it’s hard to know what that means.

Generally, when I have heard the remark, the person has been ridiculing the person making a claim. That is, there is never any acknowledgment that the “dog didn’t bark,” and it has been a claim that a computer model prediction is worse than the previous predictions, not that reality is worse than the prediction.

Dana H Saylor Sr.
May 5, 2022 3:12 pm

Being a lifelong agriculturalists with a science background, I have always been sensitive to climate trends and weather events, as anyone who endeavors to make a living in agriculture must be. What is confounding is how the meaning of “climate change” has been perverted to mean something total different than it’s intended definition and perverted and exploited by climate activists. I commend the author for bringing common sense clarity and understanding to this extremely important issue.

Dana H Saylor Sr.
Saint Louis, MO

Bob
May 5, 2022 4:41 pm

Very good.

BobM
May 5, 2022 6:45 pm

Very nice essay. You raise an interesting point hadn’t thought of before. Thank you.

Jim
May 5, 2022 7:59 pm

Wow this guy said it so neatly and in as few words as possible. And yes Silver Blaze is one of Arthur Conan Doyles better Sherlock Holmes short stories. All here should read it. Its very instructive. Holmes would take care of these Save the World Climate Crusaders very quickly they would not know what hit them.

Chris Hanley
May 5, 2022 9:53 pm

The Central England is probably the longest thermometer record, I would like a kind alarmist to show me precisely at what point on these time-series charts the ‘climate crisis’ started and why then.

4 Eyes
May 5, 2022 10:24 pm

Didn’t Gavin Schmidt (of NASA) say the models are running too hot?

… But as climate scientists face this alarming reality, the climate models that help them project the future have grown a little too alarmist. Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast. In advance of the U.N. report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models, which in other respects are more powerful and trustworthy than their predecessors, into useful guidance for policymakers. “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. …

Read more: https://www.science.org/news/2021/07/un-climate-panel-confronts-implausibly-hot-forecasts-future-warming

So you would think that one of them might have done a comprehensive audit. But no, they didn’t AFAIK. Why not? A lot of us here at WUWT might go away and leave them alone if they did an audit and then provided a plausible scientific reason for the discrepancies. So here’s your chance, climate scientists and your modelling associates, respond to the author’s essay, with numbers of course. You see, it doesn’t matter how fancy your model is, how many lines of code it has, if it over-estimates actual temperatures then it, or its assumptions, are wrong. And if you can’t tell us why it is wrong then it is just plain crap.

Dennis
May 5, 2022 11:21 pm

With a Federal Election due in Australia in a couple of weeks time today hundreds of school children, teachers, Greens and other climate hoax believers disrupted traffic in the City of Sydney CBD demonstrating and demanding attention to the climate emergency underway, the mob believes.

All have short memories and/or are too young to remember that the warming tipping point goal posts are moved as each tipping point passes with no predicted consequences.

Last edited 20 days ago by Dennis
D Boss
May 6, 2022 3:55 am

What an excellent and well presented essay! Yes the dog didn’t bark, and the emperor is wearing no clothes….

However, those perpetrating the climate cult, thermageddon propaganda know this and have been “adjusting” the past data records to better conform to their unsupported theory!

As you well know, if a Chartered Accountant or CPA were to arbitrarily go back and change the numbers to erase a net loss and make it appear a net profit – or vise versa, he or she would be sanctioned or charged criminally. No such accountability exists with this ongoing fraud – which is tantamount to crimes against humanity if their goals of eliminating our reliable energy supplies is fulfilled. (billions will die if hydrocarbon fuels are eliminated)

The facts of the “adjustments” are glaringly obvious in the following rendering of the adjustments when you plot the temperature record adjustments against the concentration of CO2: (the value of the adjustments to past temperature records plotted against CO2 is a straight line – showing clearly the adjustments are intended to modify the data to conform to the theory, which is anti scientific to say the least)

Image taken from Tony Heller’s site, at this location:

https://realclimatescience.com/2021/03/noaa-temperature-adjustments-are-doing-exactly-what-theyre-supposed-to/

USHCN-FINAL-MINUS-RAW-TAVG-Vs-CO2-1900-2020-At-All-US-Historical-Climatology-Network-Stations-USHCN-FINAL-MINUS-RAW-TAVG-vs-CO2-1.png
David Dibbell
May 6, 2022 4:27 am

David Hawkins, thank you for this essay. Well done. You make a very good point.

Another example of “the dog that never barks” is the Arctic sea ice extent. The overall trend looks flat since about 2007, following predictions from that time of rapid continuing decline. It’s not happening.

I look forward to seeing all the remaining essay entries and encourage WUWT to post them at least once a week.

Geoff Sherrington
May 6, 2022 4:30 am

David,
There is a lot of modesty in your presentation, which hints at a good deal of experience and career success.
You have highlighted an angle that is new to me, by suggesting a critical audit point or two.
Thank you. Geoff S

TheFinalNail
May 6, 2022 5:43 am

In our present case, the lack of actual temperatures exceeding those forecast by climate models is the relevant fact.

That’s simply not the case. Observed temperatures have exceeded dozens of the CMIP5 model runs. They have been lower than a good many as well. That’s expected. As long as observations remain inside the 5-95% multi-model range, they are useful.

The CMIP5 model range was developed for use in the IPCC’s 2013 report, with the forecast period running from 2005. At the time the IPCC stated that it was most likely that observations would gravitate towards the centre of the range, given the different parameters specified (some with more warming factors, some with more cooling factors). That is what has been observed.

The chart below shows Figure 11.25 from IPCC AR5 (2013), updated to 2020 by Ed Hawkins, University of Reading and IPCC AR5 contributing author. The black lines show a range of observational data sets. The ‘spaghetti’ lines are the various model runs, colour coded to match the respective RCPs. 2021 was slightly cooler, so the black lines will dip slightly once it’s updated, but they will stay well within the 5-95% range.

Observations as of 2020 are in the middle of the range of projections; perhaps slightly more aligned to the lower RCPs. However, you can see from a glance that it’s just plain wrong to state that there is a “lack of actual temperatures exceeding those forecast by climate models”. There are literally dozens of CMIP5 models that show less warming that what has been observed.

fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2020-panela.png
Bill Everett
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 6, 2022 9:00 am

Since 2004, the temperature record shows most yearly temperature readings to be less than that of 2004. If you disregard the El Nino periods that condition is more pronounced.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Bill Everett
May 6, 2022 9:37 am

Since 2004, the temperature record shows most yearly temperature readings to be less than that of 2004.

We’re talking about global average temperatures here. Where are you getting your information from? The CMIP5 chart above refers to surface temperatures, as taken by thermometers. 2004 isn’t even in the top 20 warmest years! Every rear since 2005 has been warmer than 2004 according to GISS.

Even in UAH (not thermometer based but held in high regard by many here) 2004 is ranked 19th warmest out of its 43 year record.

Are you making this up?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 6, 2022 10:47 am

So final nail, I trust you wrote to Gavin Schmidt, NASA’S climate modeler, that he was egregiously wrong when he said climate models run a way too hot! This, all by itself, informs you that Schmidt himself can find nowhere to hide safely in the data you point to to say otherwise. You didn’t challenge him? Then it is prima facie that you choose to be dishonest. What do you and minions, which have had CO2 T control knob debunked before your very eyes, get out of this?

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 6, 2022 11:39 am

He was talking about the latest round, CMIP6, which the modellers themselves, not any self-appointed ‘sceptic’, discovered ran too hot due to the way they handle the effects of clouds. This was identified and accounted for in the IPCC’s most recent AR.

That doesn’t alter the fact that the 2013 CMIP5 models are supported by observations since their forecast period started in 2005. So the statement that climate models never exceed model forecasts is still wrong.

b.nice
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 6, 2022 2:21 pm

“CMIP5 models are supported by observations”

NO, they are supported by urban warming and data manipulations.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 7, 2022 10:52 am

Gavin Schmidt is no sceptic! He’s NASA’s climate modeler!!! GISS head FFS! (that you don’t seem to know this shows your winging it for the climateering cause). He also said MODELS (plural) run a way too hot. Well thank you anyway for admitting you are a dishonest spinner of inconvenient info. Schmidt also issued his warning about “a way too hot” models prior to IPCC’s new CMIP6 being released with their recent report so you need a different spin.

When I engage with someone on any issue I like to think that they will have a real take on it or it’s a waste of time.

So here are sincere questions: What would it take to change your mind on “crisis climate?” “Having accepted alarming climate as it was presented in the last decade of the 20th century, have you had to moderate your beliefs at all during the last 30yrs? 20yrs?”

b.nice
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 6, 2022 2:19 pm

The black line on the chart is not thermometer based.

It is adjustment based.

Try again.

Bill Everett
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 7, 2022 12:19 pm

I’m referring to the UAH temperature graph.

Bill Everett
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 7, 2022 12:33 pm

Go to the UAH Gobal Temperature Chart displayed elsewhere on this site and tell me you see most recent years since 2004 warmer than that year. If you do, I recommend that you consult an optometrist.

Bill Everett
Reply to  Bill Everett
May 7, 2022 12:25 pm

I’m referring to the UAH temperature graph..

Janice Moore
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 6, 2022 11:53 am

The GCM’s are tuned (after they made a projection) to fit historic data.[1] Your chart is highly misleading. Mr. Hawkins’ assertion stands: when the climate simulators projected the temperature, the projection was always higher than the later observation.

If, ad arguendo, Hawkins was mistaken and there were incidences of a GCM projection lower than observed data, the incidences are too few to be statistically significant.

[1] Climate Models Fail, Bob Tisdale

David Hawkins
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 6, 2022 2:18 pm

This was a 1,500 word essay, not a full blown scientific paper. I would love to have done a comprehensive analysis of actual outcomes against different sets of climate models, but lacked space and had other things I wanted to say. I chose to compare against a recent set of predictions, by an author I trust (Ross McKitrick) which includes sensible conclusions from the data. The comparison I would love to do is actual temperatures plotted against the predictions in the Mann Bradley Hughes 1999 paper, the hockey stick graph. The essay conclusion, I think, stands.

b.nice
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 6, 2022 2:18 pm

Black line is not real observation. It is fabricated nonsense

Your graph is totally meaningless.

Coach Springer
May 6, 2022 7:03 am

I wrote an essay several years ago with a similar reasoning involving the number of assumptions needed to justify radical action. I identified a couple more conditions, though.

“The environmental campaign leading to demands for radical changes to our lifestyles relies on a progression from one assertion to another, all supposedly scientifically supported. This series starts with the assertion that climate models are a good predictor of future climate and temperature. The next assumption (probably the largest) is that carbon dioxide is the main, if not the only driver, of these climate models. The next assumption is that a rise in global temperatures in excess of 1.5 degrees Centigrade by 2050 will have a disastrous effect on the ecosystems of the planet. The final assumption in the chain is that limiting carbon dioxide generated by humanity to arbitrarily set limits will stabilise global temperatures.”

This describes a set of conditions needed to justify radical climate change action. Looks like a joint probability of conditions. (Each one joined by an “and”. Or all of these are independent of each other and must be true.)* Math says that if each condition is highly likely (90%), then the outcome is 90% of 90% of 90% of 90% – or only 65% in support of radical change to the world’s lifestyles. But wait …

“Climate models in the past have not predicted current temperature trends, so cannot be assumed to be accurate in the future. I could have chosen (and others probably will) to write and challenge any of the other assumptions in the chain, for all are equally erroneous.”

The UN’s IPCC has tried to obfuscate the climate model issue by providing a number of models with various outcomes. Let’s be charitable and say that the middle prediction of 1.5 degrees is a midling likely 50%. Math: .5 X .9 X .9 X .9 = 36% in favor of drastic climate change action. But wait …

Those other 3 assumptions are scientific unknowns. Let’s be charitable and say they are as likely as not. Math: .5 X .5 X ,5 X .5 = 6,25% in favor of radical, world-wide climate action.

Of course, some of the more likely effective measures for this poorly supported (6.25 likely) proposal are disqualifying in the first place:. Here are 2 which are in process right now:

1. Drastic world-wide control of economies with loss of basic freedom – including speaking against this regime.
2. Forced sterilization and abortion with societal engineering. (The zero population gropwth crowd – for now.)

*Not a statistician, but sure seems a joint probability issue to me. BTW, it is not entirely a coincidence that the author is a trained accountant and I, having passed the CPA exam, separately conceptualized the matter in a similar way.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Coach Springer
May 6, 2022 11:03 am

My chief concern about all this is that sceptics and nature herself have thoroughly debunked the CO2 T control knob and crisis climate on which it is based for any reasonable person not standing to gain anything from the meme. This means we face the hardened concentrate of remaining useful idiot zealots and innumerate unthinking followers.

Bruce Cobb
May 6, 2022 8:26 am

The fact is that they can’t account for the lack of warming. It’s a travesty.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 6, 2022 11:29 am

😄

TallDave
May 6, 2022 9:04 am

Model ECS values plotted against model warming trends. Red squares = high ECS group, blue circles = low-ECS group. Open shape = MT trend, closed shape = LT trend. Inverted triangles = mean observed LT trend (solid), mean observed MT trend (open).

Brent Gebhardt
May 6, 2022 10:50 am

This reminds me of an article that I had read in 2015:
NEW PAPER: Why Models Run Hot: Results From An Irreducibly Simple Climate Model – William M. Briggs (wmbriggs.com)

“The measured, real-world rate of global warming over the past 25 years, equivalent to less than 1.4 oC per century, is about half the IPCC’s central prediction in 1990.
The new, simple climate model helps to expose the errors in the complex models the IPCC and governments rely upon. Those errors caused the over-predictions on which concern about Man’s influence on the climate was needlessly built.”

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Brent Gebhardt
May 6, 2022 11:51 am

Here is the summarised IPCC 2007 (AR4) projection for the rate of global warming expected for the next two decades (we’re now nearly 15 years in).

For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.

IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (page 12).

According to UAH, the global warming rate since 2007 currently stands at +0.26°C per decade. The rate of warming forecast by the IPCC in 2007 would actually have to slow down over the next few years in order for the IPCC not to be wrong on the side of being too cool.

Last edited 19 days ago by TheFinalNail
b.nice
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 6, 2022 2:34 pm

Models are way above reality. And getting worse and worse as the temperature drops .

They have got to the stage of being totally farcical.

christychart.png
Bill Everett
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 8, 2022 6:58 am

The temperature record from the mid-1880’s to the present shows that the temperature in about 1915 was no higher than in the mid-1880’s. After a period of continuous warming from about 1915 until about 1945, the temperature in about 1975 was no higher than the temperature in about 1945. From about 1975 until about 2004 or five there was a period of continuous warming. During the 1990’s, all of the several climate models produced predicted continuous warming into the future. None predicted that the warming curve would flatten, as it did, after about 2004-2005. You seem to be one of a number of individuals who seem to be desperately attempting to rewrite the temperature record since 2004-5. The true test of whether the period from 2004-5 until 2035 is another period of pause in warming will be to see if the temperature in 2035 is no higher than in 2004-5 with obvious El Nino and La Nina periods not considered. The statement that temperatures of recent years have been the highest is irrelevant. The temperature record clearly shows that the Earth is warming, so obviously the more recent years will be warmer. But the record also clearly shows that the Earth is not warming continuously which is a dagger in the heart of the argument that rising CO2 levels are the cause of the warming. CO2 at a level of only 1/24th of one percent of the atmosphere can’t keep itself warm let alone warming the entire Earth.

May 6, 2022 2:05 pm

Great essay DH, well deserved silver medal!

Another odd thing about global temperature predicted in the climate models is that it ascends in a monotonous straight line. For up to a century of more. When has climate ever done that in the past? Never. And it never will.

Ulric Lyons
May 6, 2022 4:22 pm

The McKitrick & Christy study period is 1979 to 2014, from a colder Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) to a warmer AMO. I posit that the warming of the AMO from 1995 was due to weaker solar wind states since then, so a large proportion of the warming trend would be a negative feedback rather than forced warming.

solarwindtempandpressure.PNG
%d bloggers like this: